Shottenkirk Boerne, LLC v. Julia Armstrong

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00322-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00322-CV

SHOTTENKIRK BOERNE, LLC, Appellant

v.

Julia ARMSTRONG, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-235 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

On May 12, 2025, appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal from a December 23, 2024

default judgment. To prevail in a restricted appeal, an appellant “must establish that: (1) it filed

notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party

to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment

complained of and did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact 04-25-00322-CV

and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record.” Alexander v. Lynda’s

Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 30.

Here, all four elements are undisputed. The clerk’s record shows that appellant timely filed

its notice of restricted appeal; it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; it did not participate in the

hearing that resulted in the challenged judgment; and it did not timely file any postjudgment

motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additionally, appellee concedes

that there is error apparent on the face of the record because appellant was not properly served.

Accordingly, we reverse the December 23, 2024 default judgment and remand this matter to the

trial court for further proceedings.

-2-